1. The Russian anti-ship missiles are just the thing that has Washington scared, it has totally invalidated the strategy for Taiwanese defense that they had kept for years.

2. The Type-96 is designed from the ground up to deal with Abrams tanks. The Russian T-90 is also a design based on the T-72 but the Type-96 is most likely better. I think they are comparing its performance to a T-72 in a certain catagory. This is irrelevent because assuming the US could find suitable grounds to have a war with China, the US armor would be blunted by massed artillary.

I personally think that with the American and British Armies in such an awful state (British defense ministry officials saying they can't undertake any major deployments for at least 10 years. American National Guard and Reserve commanders saying their forces are "spent", and the American Army, overall, being far too thinly stretched), well, Russia could clean house against an American attack.

I'm not saying Russia can invade and occupy the USA, but they surely could repel any American-British attack into Russia.

Again, technology is meaningless. Morale, as well as tactics and training will win the day.

True, morale and tactics are important, but so is technology. That is infact the main reason why our race once managed to dominate the entire world.

The main reason that North Vietnam was able to repulse the U.S was due to a complete lack of committment on the part of the U.S. No bombing cities? No marching in North Vietnamese territory? That artificially put them on the defensive. Now, while the U.S had poorly trained and poorly encouraged troops, they still managed to inflict heavy losses by comparison to the losses they suffered. American casualties were around 50,000, while the North Vietnamese suffered almost one million losses.

True, morale and tactics are important, but so is technology. That is infact the main reason why our race once managed to dominate the entire world.

The main reason that North Vietnam was able to repulse the U.S was due to a complete lack of committment on the part of the U.S. No bombing cities? No marching in North Vietnamese territory? That artificially put them on the defensive. Now, while the U.S had poorly trained and poorly encouraged troops, they still managed to inflict heavy losses by comparison to the losses they suffered. American casualties were around 50,000, while the North Vietnamese suffered almost one million losses.

HELLO there, were you not reading my previous posts?

The US lost in Vietnam on the BATTLEFIELD. People like General Westmoreland would be quite surprised to hear that they were not fighting to win. America DID bomb North Vietnamese cities, bombed any and all suspected VC hideouts in the south, put more ordnance on the Ho Chi Minh trail than they used worldwide in WW2, and did run some limited sabotage operations in North Vietnamese coastal territory in the late 50's.

An invasion of NV would have been no better than it was for China, which did just that using its armored forces and lost 20,000 people in two weeks to village militias(that's almost half the US casulties for the whole war).

Many body counts from the US in Vietnam are falsified, this has been admitted by US military personel. There was motivation to give high body counts because that was at the time the standard of success in the war. Of course the VC/NVA did suffer large casulties and usually "lost" every engagement against US forces but it won in the end, and that was their strategy all the way.

As far as technology- you only need as much technology as needed to neutralize the opponent's technics. For example, illumination flares blind night vision goggles- flares are also cheaper and more plentiful than goggles.

The US lost in Vietnam on the BATTLEFIELD. People like General Westmoreland would be quite surprised to hear that they were not fighting to win. America DID bomb North Vietnamese cities, bombed any and all suspected VC hideouts in the south, put more ordnance on the Ho Chi Minh trail than they used worldwide in WW2, and did run some limited sabotage operations in North Vietnamese coastal territory in the late 50's.

An invasion of NV would have been no better than it was for China, which did just that using its armored forces and lost 20,000 people in two weeks to village militias(that's almost half the US casulties for the whole war).

Many body counts from the US in Vietnam are falsified, this has been admitted by US military personel. There was motivation to give high body counts because that was at the time the standard of success in the war. Of course the VC/NVA did suffer large casulties and usually "lost" every engagement against US forces but it won in the end, and that was their strategy all the way.

As far as technology- you only need as much technology as needed to neutralize the opponent's technics. For example, illumination flares blind night vision goggles- flares are also cheaper and more plentiful than goggles.

Fine, I stand corrected on most of those points. However, I still believe that military effectiveness was far from maximized in the war due to politically motivated artificial constraints. Moreover, there are a number of accounts of unneeded stupidity in that war. I think the artifical political constraints + the prevalent stupidity seriously hindered America's military effectiveness in the Vietnam War.